Home Articles Reader Opinion Editorial Book Reviews Discussion Writers Guide About TCRecord
transparent 13
Topics
Discussion
Announcements
 

Chapter 9: Possibilities and Challenges: Conditions Shaping Educators’ Use of Social–Emotional Learning Indicators


by Julie A. Marsh & Kate Kennedy - 2020

Background/Context: Researchers have amassed considerable evidence on the use of student performance data (e.g., benchmark and standardized state tests) to inform educational improvement, but few have examined the use of nonacademic indicators (e.g., indicators of social and emotional well-being) available to educators, and whether the factors shaping academic data use remain true for these newer types of data. While the field continues to advocate for greater attention to the social–emotional development of students, there remains little guidance on conditions supporting the use of data on these important mindsets, dispositions, beliefs, and behaviors.

Purpose/Focus of the Study: In this article, we use sensemaking theory, prior research on academic data use, and research from a study of “early adopter” California districts to develop a framework for understanding conditions likely to shape educators’ use of social–emotional learning (SEL) indicators to inform practice.

Research Design: We develop our findings and framework by drawing on prior research and theory, as well as data from a multiyear research–practice partnership with a consortium of California districts that began measuring SEL as part of the No Child Left Behind waiver they received from the U.S. Department of Education. We draw on more than 125 interviews with consortium leaders, central office administrators, leaders, teachers, and staff in 25 schools and six districts to understand how they made sense of SEL and SEL survey data, as well as the practices employed to support SEL.

Findings: We find that five categories of conditions appear to shape how educators interpret and respond to SEL indicators: policy context, organizational conditions, interpersonal relationships and interactions, data user characteristics, and data properties. Much like academic data use, we find: (1) the accountability policy context can convey a sense of importance, but may also lead to distortive responses; (2) district and school leaders are critical for allocating time and staff, and cultivating a data culture; (3) collaboration facilitates sensemaking; (4) individual-level knowledge and beliefs can shape interpretation; and (5) timeliness and perceived relevance of data matter. Some of these conditions, however, are uniquely relevant to the use of SEL data, which brings greater ambiguity, uncertainty, and a decoupling from the traditional academic role of educators. We find that including SEL indicators in multiple measure systems can lead to uncertainty and interpretive complexity, and divide educators’ attention. Deficit conceptions may also shape sensemaking and are especially germane in the SEL context given documented gaps by race/ethnicity on measures of SEL. Another condition especially relevant to SEL indicator usage is the lack of coherence or clarity around SEL. The frequent misunderstandings of and disagreement about SEL—sometimes shaped by disciplinary background—could lead to different interpretations and responses. All of these conditions suggest that sensemaking and response to SEL data indicators are complex processes that require multiple enabling factors.

Conclusions and Implications: Given the significant investments in supporting and measuring student social-emotional development, it behooves policymakers, education leaders and practitioners to better understand the conditions facilitating and inhibiting productive use of SEL indicators. The framework provided herein presents a set of concepts and conditions that may be useful in supporting this process. The findings also raise a cautionary flag that while sometimes consistent with the process of using academic data, the use of SEL indicators may present added challenges worthy of attention. We conclude with implications for policy, practice, and research. Notably, education leaders and practitioners may want to invest in building common understanding of SEL and capacity to interpret and act on these indicators, and consider how equity orientations shape understanding and usage of SEL indicators. Policymakers may want to consider more formative uses of SEL data that are provided to educators earlier in the year, and attend to the human capital needs that accompany SEL data usage. Finally, researchers might build on this work by further examining the relationship between SEL and culture/climate and the ways in which educators respond to data on both, and also investigate the outcomes of SEL data usage, such as actions that lead to meaningful improvements in SEL.



To view the full-text for this article you must be signed-in with the appropriate membership. Please review your options below:

Sign-in
Email:
Password:
Store a cookie on my computer that will allow me to skip this sign-in in the future.
Send me my password -- I can't remember it
 
Purchase this Article
Purchase Chapter 9: Possibilities and Challenges: Conditions Shaping Educators’ Use of Social–Emotional Learning Indicators
Individual-Resource passes allow you to purchase access to resources one resource at a time. There are no recurring fees.
$12
Become a Member
Online Access
With this membership you receive online access to all of TCRecord's content. The introductory rate of $25 is available for a limited time.
$25
Print and Online Access
With this membership you receive the print journal and free online access to all of TCRecord's content.
$210


Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record Volume 122 Number 14, 2020, p. 1-28
https://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 23459, Date Accessed: 9/21/2021 2:14:51 AM

Purchase Reprint Rights for this article or review
 
Article Tools
Related Articles
There are no related articles to display

Related Discussion
 
Post a Comment | Read All

About the Author
  • Julie Marsh
    University of Southern California
    E-mail Author
    JULIE A. MARSH, Ph.D., is a professor of education policy at the University of Southern California Rossier School of Education. Her research focuses on K–12 policy, governance, and equity, including the implementation and effects of accountability and instructional policy, the politics of reform, and data-driven and participatory decision-making. Recent publications include: “Policy Narratives of Accountability and Social–Emotional Learning” (Educational Policy) and “Conceptualizing Equity in the Implementation of California Education Finance Reform” (American Journal of Education).
  • Kate Kennedy
    University of Southern California
    E-mail Author
    KATE KENNEDY is a Ph.D. candidate in urban education policy at the University of Southern California. Her research focuses on politics, leadership, and equity in K–12 education policy. Areas of specialization include teacher work conditions, school choice, and affective policies (e.g., social–emotional learning and discipline reform). She recently published “Centering Equity and Caring in Leadership for Social–Emotional Learning: Toward a Conceptual Framework for Diverse Learners” in the Journal of School Leadership.
 
Member Center
In Print
This Month's Issue

Submit
EMAIL

Twitter

RSS